I say no.Yes they appear to be overpowered but shutdown easily. But they haven't done much in the OCG. Yes, they topped often, won a few events. But they haven't done as much as shaddolls. You guys need to think about this harder.Hopefully this'll help for your future choices.

i said no due to the fact that test is chance to evaluate a players skill and is hard to do when they just set scale ss ss ss ss ss ss otk and that is that deck play dont get side tracked thinking about killer ect decks to test should involve a thought process

x.x gotta test for the win doesn't matter if you use a easy auto pilot deck that can easily win. As long as your opp shows you his deck and how he tried to win and use the game to their advantage. Thats what i mostly see in test duels.

x.x gotta test for the win doesn't matter if you use a easy auto pilot deck that can easily win. As long as your opp shows you his deck and how he tried to win and use the game to their advantage. Thats what i mostly see in test duels.

If a testee wins 2-0 in a test against the tester, with Gusto while the tester is playing Burning Abyss; and another testee wins 2-0 against the the tester using qliphorts, while the tester is using Burning Abyss... I would say the person using qliphorts, is not as good as the player playing gusto. However, because the 2nd player was using an auto pilot deck, and the first player was using a deck that takes skill, by your logic, they both should get Obelisk, correct?

the rubric is made up to see the player's skill and his/her aptitude to win, in any way shape or form, if a tester finds that he wasnt merely as creative in using the deck as all these copy pasta decks out there...then he/she would be graded as such even if they do sack with Apoqliph. If i were to test a member and both duels i see the same "lather, rinse, repeat", during the match then i will grade em as is. lather rinse repeat, clockwork motion, no originality, no creaitivity and a saddened perspective at how he/she should or would duel, granted most qliph decks are the same, seeing atleast 1 out of place card can show me how well you are ready for any challenge. like i myself run lava golem in my qliph deck...see some may say that its a bad tech but lava g gets rid of 2 problematic cards at once in a spam heavy meta. with that being said, it limits a players action if he/she knows i have lava g , and also it punishes those who go for the big plays. it may be a 3k beater but 90% of decks can get rid of 1 monster easily these days. and that in a qliph deck is ridiculous.

Why are you banning Qliphorts? Because they're one of the best decks in the OCG atm? Because they have ONE boss monster that's "hard" to get over? Why don't we also ban Shaddolls? They can just Super Poly away your monsters because it takes no "skill", right? Oh yeah, they can also fusion summon from the deck, so let's just ban them for being good.

Oh, and while we're at it, let's ban Vanity's Emptiness, too. It takes no skill to flip up a floodgate and prevent people from playing Yu-Gi-Oh. For that matter, let's ban ALL floodgates, because there's no "skill" involved.

Oh yeah, let's not forget Nutellaknights. Very "unskilled" deck, so might as well give them the axe.

Do you know why Exodia, Burn, Countdown, etc are all banned on rubrics, initially? Because they're Solitaire based decks where a single duelist simply activates draw/stall cards to prevent their opponent from taking any action and encourages non-player interactions in duels.

This is NOT the case for Qliphorts. Yes, they have a menacing boss monster that's a tank once it hits the field, but think about it: once it hits the field, is it preventing you from playing the game? Is it something that prevents you from playing the game properly through stalling or speeding through your deck in 1 turn to draw Exodia? No. It may be difficult to win, but then again, that's why it's meta. Because it's a GOOD deck, and not one of those sitty amalgamations that people on DN are notorious for using.

In the event that you didn't read/aren't educated enough to understand; don't ban them for testing.